Savage 110 action lightening

Printable View

12-19-2013, 02:59 PM
Sundodger

Savage 110 action lightening

I have been spitballing a lightweight mountain rifle project for a bit now and wondering about pulling weight out of a stainless steel 110 blind mag action. The savage lightweight hunter does not appeal to me due to lack of composite stock, short barrel, and easily corroded materials/coatings.
*
Many gunsmiths will remove weight from Remington 700 and W70 actions, with the claim it doesn’t significantly impact strength/durability/accuracy, but I have never seen it offered for savage’s.* Looking over my 110’s there doesn’t seem to be a ton of material that could be removed, but always interested in seeing what’s possible and what people have tried.
*
Has anyone had this done?*
How were the results?
Where do they remove material?
How much weight loss?
Any gunsmiths that specialize in lightweight savages?* They really seem like a perfect candidate; already pretty lightweight from the start (the one I am looking to start with is 6.5lbs)
12-19-2013, 03:37 PM
pdog06

Never really seen anyone do it, but if anyone has Im sure it woulda been Fred at SSS. He should be here shortly to let us know.
12-19-2013, 05:14 PM
sinman

easiest way to save weight is to go with a short action. I just ordered a new cnc mill and I am going to try some lightening of a receiver and also a new style bolt release.
12-19-2013, 06:48 PM
sharpshooter

There is not much to gain by lightening the receiver. When I talked with Chris Bezzina, head of engineering @ Savage, he stated that on the light weight hunter, the lightning cuts on the receiver only took off less than 3 oz. The main reduction was in the lighter barrel contour, a hollow stock and magazine components made from polymer instead of steel. He also stated that the weight of the slimmed down walnut stock was only an once difference than the tupperware.
12-19-2013, 07:42 PM
Sundodger

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharpshooter

There is not much to gain by lightening the receiver. When I talked with Chris Bezzina, head of engineering @ Savage, he stated that on the light weight hunter, the lightning cuts on the receiver only took off less than 3 oz. The main reduction was in the lighter barrel contour, a hollow stock and magazine components made from polymer instead of steel. He also stated that the weight of the slimmed down walnut stock was only an once difference than the tupperware.

Thank you, that is some great input.

That doesn’t surprise me at all. Analyzing my 110’s there really isn’t much to them, so 3 oz is actually impressive to me.* Does anyone have pictures showing what they removed?

The gun I was looking at to start with is 16FSS and savage states its 6.5lbs. I would really like it to be 5lbs or under, but that may not be possible.

Here is my fat thumb guesses based off some internet searches and phone calls, take this data with a grain of salt.

Aftermarket carbon fiber stock: 10oz (McMillian edge fill vs a factory Tupperware stock).

Helical flutes on the barrel or lighter weight barrel: 5oz

Action: 3oz (assuming what was done on the LWH can be repeated on the SS action.

Helical flutes on the bolt with sketonized and trimmed down bolt handle: 1oz

Total weight savings: 19oz or 1.1875lbs

Assuming savage’s gun weight for 16FSSS is correct that would leave me with a 5.3125lb rifle.

It’s really too bad savage will not come out with a lightweight hunter with a Ti action, SS barrel, and a lightweight composite stock. With their production volumes they should be able to undercut Remington mt rifle, browning ti, and the Forbes guns by a fair amount in terms of cost.
12-19-2013, 08:35 PM
Hotolds442

I see no reason you couldn't skeletonize the rear bridge of the action, you should be axle to gain a couple of ounces there.
12-19-2013, 08:54 PM
DanSavage

I exzamined my 110 and was thinking if I had to go lighter with it I wouldn't be afraid to remove bolt and drill several small holes in the rear section beneath the serial number and remove bolt release for the other side.
12-19-2013, 08:58 PM
DanSavage

Ok I must be going blind, I now see that HotOlds said the same as me.
12-19-2013, 09:07 PM
Sundodger

Thanks guys, I was thinking along the same lines in terms of places to remove material.

Anyone have a picture or diagram showing where savage removed material on the LWH?
12-19-2013, 09:09 PM
Sundodger

Quote:

Originally Posted by sinman

easiest way to save weight is to go with a short action. I just ordered a new cnc mill and I am going to try some lightening of a receiver and also a new style bolt release.

I would be really interested to hear your plans and how they turn out. Willing to share?
12-20-2013, 12:58 AM
sinman

Ill show pictures when I get it finished
12-20-2013, 08:41 AM
BillPa

Take a peek at the action on the Savage Lightweight Hunter....
https://s3.amazonaws.com/savagefiles..._UmJHNEE6X.png
http://www.savagearms.com/firearms/models/
12-20-2013, 10:28 AM
RP12

Cosmetics are cool, but in my opinion, just to lighten the action, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. A lot of work and cost for not a lot of gain. But that's just me.:p
12-20-2013, 12:08 PM
EvanB

Might consider a carbon fiber barrel. That would really give you a unique, lightweight rifle and they shoot really well.
12-20-2013, 09:22 PM
Sundodger

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillPa

Take a peek at the action on the Savage Lightweight Hunter....
http://www.savagearms.com/firearms/models/

Yeah, I have looked at them. I can clearly see the parts on the receiver above the stock that have been milled, but what else is modified? Anything? Are they made out of a higher strength steel to allow removal of more material, etc?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RP12

Cosmetics are cool, but in my opinion, just to lighten the action, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. A lot of work and cost for not a lot of gain. But that's just me.:p

Well, a NULA, Forbes, or Remington Ti are not cheap so the hope is to be close to the weight for less money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvanB

Might consider a carbon fiber barrel. That would really give you a unique, lightweight rifle and they shoot really well.

I have, but I am really concerned with damage. I hunt hard in some very bad terrain and I would suspect smacking it against a rock could be a really bad deal. Open to comments from people that actually have them though.
12-20-2013, 09:42 PM
big honkin jeep

Just my $.02 but overlooking a shorter barrel may be a mistake. I did a lightweight "carbine" project a while back and whacked a sporter .308 barrel down to 16". I don't think anything that gets in front of it even at several hundred yards is going to complain that the bullet isn't going fast enough. Plenty accurate as well. You may want to see what some of the "Striker" guys are getting as far as velocity and accuracy from 12 and 14" barrels before you dismiss a 16" "shorty Barrel" entirely as a light weight alternative.
12-21-2013, 07:56 AM
pdog06

what caliber are you going with? Bigger hole= less metal= less weight......LOL

Also, just going from a long action to a short action will save you more weight than you will probably get from lightening the action.
12-22-2013, 03:38 PM
Sundodger

Quote:

Originally Posted by big honkin jeep

Just my $.02 but overlooking a shorter barrel may be a mistake. I did a lightweight "carbine" project a while back and whacked a sporter .308 barrel down to 16". I don't think anything that gets in front of it even at several hundred yards is going to complain that the bullet isn't going fast enough. Plenty accurate as well. You may want to see what some of the "Striker" guys are getting as far as velocity and accuracy from 12 and 14" barrels before you dismiss a 16" "shorty Barrel" entirely as a light weight alternative.

Hmmm, you are right I have dismissed it and maybe without good reason. I will run some numbers on ballistics to see the impact, I want a gun that I can cleanly take a deer at 500 yards with. Talking to people I am a little concerned for muzzle blast as well, maybe I need to find someone with some short barreled guns to go and shoot to get a feel for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdog06

what caliber are you going with? Bigger hole= less metal= less weight......LOL

Also, just going from a long action to a short action will save you more weight than you will probably get from lightening the action.

I am currently thinking a .260 Remington, so it will be short action. I know what you mean by larger hole for a given barrel contour, but the smaller hole and a less potent round should mean I can run a even smaller barrel contour and/or deeper fluting and still keep hoop stress/strain in check.
12-23-2013, 01:52 AM
jpdown

I have the LWH in 260. You are not going to get a standard SA Savage down to the weight of one of these rifles. I don't care what diet you put it on. I tried for 3 years to build one before Savage introduced the LWH. Save your time and money. Buy a Savage 11 LWH and be done with it. Have it finished with GunKote or CeraKote if you want it weatherproof.

The 20" FW barrel is around 2 lbs vs. 2 lbs 6 oz for a 22" Savage factory sporter barrel. Savage cuts about 4 oz with a skeletonized action and bolt body. Savage saves another 5 oz by using a plastic trigger guard, DBM frame assembly and bottom cap. The Savage 11 LWH wood and standard factory synthetic stock are as light as it gets at 1 lb 6 oz. The Manners Edge is not any lighter at around 22 to 26 oz. The pros of these rifles are the light weight, compact size and handling in tight quarters. The cons are the light barrel, muzzle blast and recoil which makes them harder to consistently shoot well if you have OCD when it comes to a need for sub MOA groups. But the deer, pigs and song dogs can't tell any difference.